In the beginning of my PhD candidate time, I received a copied article by post at my home adress. The sender was my promotor, Koos. It is the only text I could find, he wrote on a note on the side. The article was derived from Stadsgeschiedenis. (2012) nr.1 and contained seventeen pages. The article is written in Dutch, or better in Belgian. Title: ' Het groene verleden van de industriële stad. Wortels en bloei van het historisch onderzoek naar de stedelijke groenruimte in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw.' The writers are Andreas Stynen and Bart Tritsmans. Both men, researchers in Belgium, are no historians. Information I got by Bart in my mailbox. As a reply after I mailed him with some questions.
The first time I read the article, I did not understand a lot if it and my first impression of the article was, it sounds so political. I questioned myself What to do with it? Answering myself by This is not my understanding of science. I reacted with a sort of distaste and disunderstanding. Only later, discussing it, I became aware of the distinguishes between the understanding and practitioning of science and the scholarly, today. In Europe. By European standards.
In the second year of my PhD candidate time, after having chosen for the field of history and not for the field of theory, because I formulated my conclusions as follows: Architecture theory, that is what I can make up my self. And that is exactly the opposite why I wanted to do a PhD. In the meantime I visited several meetings with other PhD candidates, occupied with subjects in the field of history. And that seemed so much more interesting. The final argument for choosing the field of history is the historical method. This method can be described as a three column building without a roof. The columns are round, circular as you see them cut through horizontally. Well said, you might think now, but can you describe it to me in a language more commonly understood?
Sure: literature, sources and interviews. One has to read literature, one has to find sources and one has to question people.
And then you can asked yourself, how much literature? In which language? Written by whom? How many sources? What is a source? Where to go and look for it? Which people? How many questions?
As a person who was trained for more than twentyfive years to think spatial and creative, where crossing the border of reality into the imaginary is an easy thing to do. I suddenly became aware of a mental world in which demarcations were a common thing to do.
You can imagine........weird.
On top of that. After my million google scholar result readings and filteringen, Koos wrote by mail
'Google is not the only source'. I suddenly remembered this article. Fortunately I had archived it
neatly with all my received post. Then I started to read it for the fourth time, fifth time, now focussing on to whom the writers refer, from whom they had extracted words.
In the next blog, I shall inform you about the content of the article, important for my research. Don't worry. I will report in English.
The first time I read the article, I did not understand a lot if it and my first impression of the article was, it sounds so political. I questioned myself What to do with it? Answering myself by This is not my understanding of science. I reacted with a sort of distaste and disunderstanding. Only later, discussing it, I became aware of the distinguishes between the understanding and practitioning of science and the scholarly, today. In Europe. By European standards.
In the second year of my PhD candidate time, after having chosen for the field of history and not for the field of theory, because I formulated my conclusions as follows: Architecture theory, that is what I can make up my self. And that is exactly the opposite why I wanted to do a PhD. In the meantime I visited several meetings with other PhD candidates, occupied with subjects in the field of history. And that seemed so much more interesting. The final argument for choosing the field of history is the historical method. This method can be described as a three column building without a roof. The columns are round, circular as you see them cut through horizontally. Well said, you might think now, but can you describe it to me in a language more commonly understood?
Sure: literature, sources and interviews. One has to read literature, one has to find sources and one has to question people.
And then you can asked yourself, how much literature? In which language? Written by whom? How many sources? What is a source? Where to go and look for it? Which people? How many questions?
As a person who was trained for more than twentyfive years to think spatial and creative, where crossing the border of reality into the imaginary is an easy thing to do. I suddenly became aware of a mental world in which demarcations were a common thing to do.
You can imagine........weird.
On top of that. After my million google scholar result readings and filteringen, Koos wrote by mail
'Google is not the only source'. I suddenly remembered this article. Fortunately I had archived it
neatly with all my received post. Then I started to read it for the fourth time, fifth time, now focussing on to whom the writers refer, from whom they had extracted words.
In the next blog, I shall inform you about the content of the article, important for my research. Don't worry. I will report in English.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten